Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 22



Template:Bids for the 2024 Summer Olympics

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Keep. Now in use where applicable, so the rationale given with delete votes no longer applies. ~ RobTalk 00:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Unused template JMHamo (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bids for the 2024 Summer Olympics
 * Delete as unused. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as used... And useful. Hektor (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Three of the 5 bids now have articles. Georgia guy (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:MMMeadowsSeriesUnderInfoBox

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Relisting at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_30. redundant to Mountain Meadows massacre. we don't need both a sidebar and a navbox in the same article. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MMMeadowsSeriesUnderInfoBox
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Mediation request

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was mark as historical. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Unused. Mediation Cabal is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Mediation request
 * Delete. Tired joke. Alakzi (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, what's the joke? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical. BethNaught (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To what purpose? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not for any definite purpose. It just seems to me a shame to delete part of an important piece of wiki-history. Since it's unused it won't require maintenance. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and change the template to be for the Mediation Commitee. The MedCab may be historic, but the MedCom is still running and active. If that can't be done for techincal reasons then I would choose to mark as historical. --TL22 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment we have an active Requests for mediation and this should be made to work with that -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This should be used for Requests for mediation related things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This template absolutely should not be repurposed because that would make old revisions using the template point to to wrong forum. I'm also sure MedCom has sufficient templates or is able to create them if necessary. I reiterate it should be marked as historical and no more. BethNaught (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not repurpose because that would cause a lot of confusion between the old and new versions of the template (especially because I'm not convinced WP:RFM would appreciate having a random template from Wikipedia's history thrust on them and being made to use it). Probably marking as historical is the best option; there's no harm in processes from Wikipedia's history floating around in non-article namespaces (especially because there are plausible reasons to want to know how they worked in the future, e.g. to make an argument for or against an RFC for something similar). --ais523 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).